That is not what he is saying and I have a feeling that you know it. Misrepresentation of what people say here is practically a sport now.

Budegetarily the NHS and the deficits it creates is not assisting in the recovery of the British economy. It is acting as a further drag that they are attempting to shore up through cuts elsewhere. Whether you think that is the right thing to do or not is beside the point, and not at all what he is arguing.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Oh give it a rest. That's like saying NASA is dragging down our economy. The financial crisis--the willful fucking abuse of the populace by greedy ass banks gambling with public money--is what is dragging economies down. But Jazzy doesn't like the idea of government healthcare so let's go pin all the problems on that.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Oh give it a rest. That's like saying NASA is dragging down our economy. The financial crisis--the willful fucking abuse of the populace by greedy ass banks gambling with public money--is what is dragging economies down. But Jazzy doesn't like the idea of government healthcare so let's go pin all the problems on that.

That is not what he is doing though. But if that is how you want to see it that is your prerogative.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

GM spends more on healthcare benefits than it spends on steel. The UK spends less than half per head than America spends and we all know how much healthcare a lot of American's get. Sure we could privatize it and make a lot of people sick in the process and make our businesses less profitable. I guess we badly need a Tea Party here!

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Well who would have thought that you would be in favour of single payer!

Single payer would mean they didn't have to fork out any money and had no paperwork to fill out. Oh, but you say taxes would go up. Well, the UK government spends less on healthcare per head than the US government.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Well who would have thought that you would be in favour of single payer!

Single payer would mean they didn't have to fork out any money and had no paperwork to fill out. Oh, but you say taxes would go up. Well, the UK government spends less on healthcare per head than the US government.

See his response? Just stupid emoticons. You're exactly right and it takes some severely willful ignorance to not see how badly this country needs single payer.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Let's document the many, many instances of government action, inaction, policy, mismanagement, etc. which have exacerbated more problems than they have mitigated, or caused more problems than they have solved.

No, he's exactly wrong...on both counts a) that I support a single payer system, and, b) that it would mean forking out less money and less paper work.

The emoticons were just a more concise way to say that.

You're joking right?

Single payer does exactly what your business man/woman were saying they wanted. It frees them up to run their businesses without having to sort out healthcare for their employees and it cuts down on costs so much that here in the UK our government spends less to treat all of it's people per head than the US government spends to have lots of people who get insufficient care and often no care. And of course people aren;'t just paying for that in taxes their paying out of pocket costs, insurance premiums and no doubt high interest payments on credit cards trying to keep up. That's an absurd situation which is brought about by a system which is designed to be highly profitable at the tax payers expense.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Single payer does exactly what your business man/woman were saying they wanted.

Actually I didn't hear that at all in what they said. What they said was that more government intervention into this area was creating more headaches for them. And even if they did say what you claim, it doesn't mean that it would be better for them or anyone else in the long run. You might solve one problem while creating a host of others.

The better way to solve the employer's problem would be to change things so they they are not providing health insurance as a benefit and that people are buying health insurance as individuals and families just like they buy homeowner's, life, car, boat and other forms of insurance. That's step one. Step two is open up real competition among health insurers minimally by allowing it to be purchased across state lines. Next eliminate all price controls and coverage mandates on health insurance.

Think about it: We don't have these same problems with other types of insurance.

Employers no longer burdened by health insurance stuff (unless they want to offer this as a benefit). No single payer system required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It frees them up to run their businesses without having to sort out healthcare for their employees...

But your logical leap is that single-payer is the only way to reach that goal. Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

and it cuts down on costs so much that here in the UK our government spends less to treat all of it's people per head than the US government spends to have lots of people who get insufficient care and often no care.

I mean that these discussions about costs and benefits are often focused very, very narrowly to things like monetary costs only and some specific benefits deemed to be highest value to the presenter. But these are not the only costs or benefits.

For example: Let's say that someone offers you free tickets to see a movie and you chose to go. Is that movie free for you?

Do you think it's even remotely possible that if these services were privatized and provided by profit-seeking enterprises the services provided would be better, higher quality, more comprehensive, more options and less expensive?

Perhaps if they were non-profits--with MAJOR caps on what the CEOs can earn. Only then. Certain aspects of human civilization clash with the desire to maximize profit first. Sorry, that's just the truth. And that's the limit of YOUR imagination.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Perhaps if they were non-profits--with MAJOR caps on what the CEOs can earn. Only then. Certain aspects of human civilization clash with the desire to maximize profit first. Sorry, that's just the truth. And that's the limit of YOUR imagination.

Can you explain why you think there is no possibility of what I've suggested without using broad generalizations and empty platitudes like "certain aspects of human civilization clash with the desire to maximize profit first?"

Can YOU explain why everything is done better with profit as the sole driving force?

It's impolite to answer a question with a question.

Frankly Adam Smith probably put it best a couple of hundred years ago in his famous "invisible hand" narrative. That said, I will do my best.

When someone seeks to earn money in any way (whether we call that profit or wages) that person must, in a free market where he or she can only obtain those profits (or wages) by voluntary exchange, provide products or services that others need or desire. The better they do this, the more people's needs and desires they meet, the greater their profit or wage. When their profit or wage is large, this entices others to begin offering similar products or services with some new advantage for customers in order to garner some or all of that profit. This process continues as new competitors enter the given market each striving to win customers by continuing to provide even better products or services at even better prices in order to win this business. All of this is done in the pursuit of profit.

In other words, in a free market, the only way to sustainably make money is to serve other people according to their own needs and desires.

Government entities do not usually suffer the same burden. Yes officials can be voted in and out of office but in the market the consequences for poor service are often much more direct and immediate. If I don't like how the local school does things...tough...they still get my money. If the local police department is slow or incompetent in responding to a crime...tough...they still get my money. Etc.

Shouldn't they break even? Or shouldn't they function as "non-profits" which actually sometimes do earn profit but just put it back into the organization rather than into the administrators' bank accounts?

Are you justifying the financial waste of NHS and other government-run organizations?

Frankly Adam Smith probably put it best a couple of hundred years ago in his famous "invisible hand" narrative. That said, I will do my best.

When someone seeks to earn money in any way (whether we call that profit or wages) that person must, in a free market where he or she can only obtain those profits (or wages) by voluntary exchange, provide products or services that others need or desire. The better they do this, the more people's needs and desires they meet, the greater their profit or wage. When their profit or wage is large, this entices others to begin offering similar products or services with some new advantage for customers in order to garner some or all of that profit. This process continues as new competitors enter the given market each striving to win customers by continuing to provide even better products or services at even better prices in order to win this business. All of this is done in the pursuit of profit.

In other words, in a free market, the only way to sustainably make money is to serve other people according to their own needs and desires.

Government entities do not usually suffer the same burden. Yes officials can be voted in and out of office but in the market the consequences for poor service are often much more direct and immediate. If I don't like how the local school does things...tough...they still get my money. If the local police department is slow or incompetent in responding to a crime...tough...they still get my money. Etc.

Now, will you answer my question?

I understand the invisible hand. That's fine. Capitalism works to an extent. But it unfortunately makes an assumption that I really wish were true. It assumes that people aren't greedy assholes. It assumes they won't use underhanded tactics to destroy competitors, and then cut corners to maximize profits. How many corporations have put people in harm's way because it would be cheaper to settle a lawsuit than correct a problem? There's no fucking accountability. Those that made the decisions involving the Ford Pinto should have been incarcerated.

Now, as far as corporate involvement in healthcare. Every penny that is skimmed off the top to line the pockets of shareholders is a penny not spent on the care of the patient. The health of the patient is the #1 goal, or at least it should be. Corners cannot be cut. But insurance companies are well known for their deny-first attitude when it comes to claims because the health of the patient is nowhere near #1. They are driven by greed. My best friend would not be consistently fucked over by his two health insurance companies, prompting a multi-billion dollar lawsuit put forth by the state of California if my best friend's health were the #1 concern.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Shouldn't they break even? Or shouldn't they function as "non-profits" which actually sometimes do earn profit but just put it back into the organization rather than into the administrators' bank accounts?

Are you justifying the financial waste of NHS and other government-run organizations?

No. They shouldn't be forced to break even. They shouldn't have to take in any money at all. Walk into a clinic, get what you need, leave. That's the human, compassionate way to deal with healthcare. That's the Christian way to deal with healthcare. WHY THE FUCK IS THE ATHEIST ALWAYS THE ONE WHO ALWAYS HAS TO POINT THIS OUT?

These are people's LIVES we are talking about here. Fucking Fuck. Money isn't everything. Stop worshipping at it's fucking altar for two minutes.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

No. They shouldn't be forced to break even. They shouldn't have to take in any money at all. Walk into a clinic, get what you need, leave. That's the human, compassionate way to deal with healthcare. That's the Christian way to deal with healthcare.

Each division of NHS is required by law to break even each year. NHS is funded by tax money. Britain is not taking in enough tax money for NHS to break even. NHS is running a deficit. Britain is losing money on NHS.

All government-run healthcare does is shift the burden of payment from the individual/group to the government. Money is still required to keep the system running. The British government does not have enough money to sustain NHS without running a deficit.

The government is the LARGEST GROUP HEALTHCARE POSSIBLE. Why is that so difficult for you to wrap your mind around? Ever fucking heard of economies of scale? Combine that with no need to make a profit, and PRESTO BINGO people's lives can be the priority! WOWZA! SUPER AMAZING!

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

The government is the LARGEST GROUP HEALTHCARE POSSIBLE. Why is that so difficult for you to wrap your mind around? Ever fucking heard of economies of scale? Combine that with no need to make a profit, and PRESTO BINGO people's lives can be the priority! WOWZA! SUPER AMAZING!

Would you like to have a conversation like civilized adults, or are you going to persist with your condescending attitude and profanity?

The money has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

Either it comes from the individual and/or their private health plan, or it comes from the government which gets its money from taxes.

What happens when the government mismanages that money? Where is the accountability there? All they have to do is raise taxes and/or cut other programs and services, and the people they claim to "care" about are the ones who suffer for it.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. "
-- Winston Churchill

Because the money diverted from treating HUMANS and instead spent on palatial estates raising the next generation of the New American Royalty is SOOOOOO much better.

Healthcare costs a lot of money. There are ways to streamline the system to cut costs. Single payer actually helps a lot with that. There goes an entire set of middlemen who bring nothing to the table. And if it costs a little more money in taxes (which, again, is doubtful...pay the fuck attention in this thread to what other people who actually know a thing or two about the NHS and the cost of healthcare per citizen), that's fine. Because I care about people.

Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies. Do you see a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM with that?

Quote:

Either it comes from the individual and/or their private health plan (while a huge chunk is skimmed off the top to pay for corporate jets and meetings in Hawaii, home of some really sweet government run healthcare by the way, only to have it all be for naught as the individual is denied coverage upon getting ill and needing it or dropped from the plan entirely), or it comes from the government which gets its money from taxes.

FTFY

Calculate your true effective tax rate + healthcare. Add up the premiums you pay, your employer pays, and your taxes. Divide by your income. You tell me that we aren't paying more for less. If you do, you're a fucking liar liar pants on fire.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

In March 2009, President Barack Obama said, "If there is a way of getting this done where we're driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I'd be happy to do it that way." This paper explains how letting workers control their health care dollars and tearing down regulatory barriers to competition would control costs, expand choice, improve health care quality, and make health coverage more secure.

First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher and the freedom to choose any health plan on the market. Vouchers would be means-tested, would contain Medicare spending, and are the only way to protect seniors from government rationing.

Second, to give workers control over their health care dollars, Congress should reform the tax treatment of health care with "large" health savings accounts. Large HSAs would reduce the number of uninsured Americans, would free workers to purchase secure health coverage from any source, and would effectively give workers a $9.7 trillion tax cut without increasing the federal budget deficit.

Third, Congress should break up state monopolies on insurance and clinician licensing. Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance licensed by other states could cover one-third of the uninsured without any new taxes or government subsidies.

Finally, Congress should reform Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program the way it reformed welfare in 1996. Block-granting those programs would reduce the deficit and encourage states to target resources to the truly needy.

The great advantage of a free market is that innovation and more prudent decisionmaking means that fewer patients will fall through the cracks.